Amber Heard&Johnny Depp post verdict

[Miscfeminista]

Continuation of previous thread:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/feminism/4560089-amber-heardjohnny-depp-verdict?page=1

and the one before(during trial):

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4552076-amber-heardjohnny-depp-trial?page=36&reply=117586863

Also, refresher on DV:

www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/recognising-domestic-abuse/

Caveat: patriarchy is still prevalent. I will always give a woman the benefit of the doubt. Take seriously and investigate first.

You seem to have confused academic research methodology and police criteria, which is perhaps inevitable if you don’t read the research yourself.

@Discovereads said that she had issues with “relying on police designations of false or not false” which that study does not. If she read it more carefully she would have seen that it analyses how accurate the police designations by evaluating the basis on which the decisions were made.

As I quoted in my above post above, the study found certain patterns - that the age bracket of 16-25 year olds were more likely to have cases designated false, unemployed were more likely than employed people, a case involving drugs or alcohol or people with mental health problems including learning disabilities more likely to be designated false.

Once the cases that did not meet the HO criteria for designating a case false were weeded out, the 8% police figure dropped to 3%. In other words the police tended to overestimate the number of false reports.

Claiming I use police data to determine false claims is incorrect and misses the point. Police and CPS data are simply a factor in any discussion of false claims that have been reported. There all kinds of problems with police data, too many to go into here - that is a topic in itself.

Iris. Who out of Kate James and Amber Heard, under oath, told the truth.

This thread is about this case.

So out of those two women, who is the liar. Forget statistics, forget the powerful man. Two women. Who lied?

It’s not a question that the CPS “choose not” to prosecute complainants in cases of a not guilty verdict. That simply means the burden of proof was not met. The defendant is either innocent or there’s insufficient evidence to secure a conviction.

If the CPS had reason to believe the case was false they would not have prosecuted it in the first place.

A trial is not complainant vs defendant, but the crown vs the defendant. The case is heard to establish if the defendant broke the laws of the land, the complainant or complainants are the principle witness(es).

A complainant in a criminal case can choose to bring a civil case against the defendant whether or not they were found guilty or not and it may succeed where a criminal prosecution failed.

The rape allegation was entirely confidential until the trial in Virginia. So there is literally no way that could be true. They're also very different stories.

Judge Nichol did not dismiss her 'as a SA survivor' at all. He said he didn't find her to be a satisfactory witness:
"I am afraid that I did not find Ms James a satisfactory witness. She
had been dismissed by Ms Heard in February 2015 and the circumstances of her
termination still appeared to be a cause of rancour with Ms James."

I'm putting this out there again

"So out of those two women, who is the liar. Forget statistics, forget the powerful man. Two women. Who lied?"

Was it the powerful woman who was telling the truth??? Amber had the power between her and KJ.

So who lied?

"Judge Nichol did not dismiss her 'as a SA survivor' at all. He said he didn't find her to be a satisfactory witness:
"I am afraid that I did not find Ms James a satisfactory witness. She
had been dismissed by Ms Heard in February 2015 and the circumstances of her"

So an employer who spat in the employees face, the employee who wanted to be be paid the same as her peers" is an unsatisfactory witness.

Ok.

Plus heard lied under oath in a previous country before the UK trial, let alone that absolute shit show display by heard we all saw in the US.

I believe KJ

I'm sorry, you believe her about Amber stealing her sexual assault story?
Which she admitted under oath she had not seen/read? Which was entirely different to her story?

Judge Nichol Dismissed her as bitter. Read the findings of the uk trial as AH sacked her because she wanted a pay rise. She asked for a pay rise and she spat in her face.

It's absolutely beyond me how anyone can defend AH. Kate james is a woman too

So you're saying Amber stole her rape story? That's what you think?

"Which she admitted under oath she had not seen/read? Which was entirely different to her story?"

Amber said this under oath??

Oh despite many jurisdictions now looking at her perjury. Let's believe amber and call Kate james a liar

"So you're saying Amber stole her rape story? That's what you think?"

YES, plus Rhihannas. She needs help for severe mental illness for the sake of her child, not enablers

Kate James said in the UK trial that she had not seen any of Amber's confidential testimony.
This was the rape allegation.
And she wouldn't have seen it because, again... it was confidential.

Kate James has said she was raped by a man who threatened her with a machete while she was travelling in Brazil.

Do you honestly not see that these are two different stories?

Aspiring

The uk trial was an absolute kangaroo court.

We must believe it though right, let's not forget saville, Rotherham, etc etc etc where UK justice absolutely covered up, also the sun newspaper and Hillsborough. Honestly anyone with any faith in this lot either supported them in their lies and covering up at the time but now it suits them...they're so honest...

Nope

Right. Not sure if there's alcohol involved here or just emotions running high but your logic is nonexistent.
I'm out.
Thanks everyone for some interesting discussions.

So which is it, uk justice, the sun, Amber are right

Or have all of them been corrupt and we will send an employee with SA under the bus because some lying Hollywood star with previous for drink driving, then arrested again for driving banned then arrested yet again for assaulting her ex wife....

I give up

"Right. Not sure if there's alcohol involved here or just emotions running high but your logic is nonexistent.
I'm out."

Nope. That's a typical abusive stance to shit someone else up. You must be drunk.

Shit😂** shut...

Anyway I hate being shut down by gaslighting tactics.

You'll deny it. That's ok. I'm used to it

Think what you want. I wish you well Tiddy. 👋

I wish you well too aspiring.

And if anyone thinks I'm pro man. I am not. I was abused for years by a man, he drove me to insanity and made me so ill I'm now have a c-ptsd diagnosis. He can go fuck himself for what he did to me. And I'll tell you right now, yes I did react to him. He drove me to fucking insanity.

I guess I'm an abuser.

So...I'm on this board and I've tried really hard to point out all sides. Unfortunately there are those than have their own agenda. Who put down other survivors because they harvest hatred. I could do the same but I don't. I'd never not see a victim because I am blinded by hatred.

@IrisVersicolor
It’s not a question that the CPS “choose not” to prosecute complainants in cases of a not guilty verdict. That simply means the burden of proof was not met. The defendant is either innocent or there’s insufficient evidence to secure a conviction. If the CPS had reason to believe the case was false they would not have prosecuted it in the first place.

Well, yes if the CPS had reason to believe the report was false/the defendant was innocent prior to the trial, they would not have prosecuted it in the first place. They prosecute thinking the defendant is guilty, but they don’t always get it right and that’s why we have trials. Not sure how this means that after a ‘not guilty’ verdict they are not making a choice as whether to prosecute the complainant for a false report?

A trial is not complainant vs defendant, but the crown vs the defendant. The case is heard to establish if the defendant broke the laws of the land, the complainant or complainants are the principle witness(es).

Thanks, I know this, didn’t say otherwise. By the way you’re describing a criminal trial, not a civil trial.

A complainant in a criminal case can choose to bring a civil case against the defendant whether or not they were found guilty or not and it may succeed where a criminal prosecution failed.

Technically yes they have that right, but if someone’s gotten a not guilty in a criminal trial, it does significantly affect the chances of winning against them in a similar civil trial regarding the same events. And to lose in civil court is prohibitively expensive, so not many will choose to launch a civil case after losing in criminal court.

What REALLY pisses me off is I've taken a lot of shit on this thread, despite being a survivor myself but hey ho. Women are nasty. Fact

So I put on here AH the victims or her assistant also a victim. Who do you believe?

Tiddy, you must have been drinking.

Wow, just wow

I'm a feminist but I believe in equality. I do not believe in bullying women to make them believe they are less than men. Some apparent feminists behaviour on here are those that set back women. Trying to make me believe I'm wrong

I'm not fucking wrong. I'm a survivor and not only that I excel in a male dominated profession and have done for 20 years.

But I will absolutely not, BECAUSE of what I've been through, blindly back a fucking liar.

I'm better than that.

@IrisVersicolor
@Discovereads said that she had issues with “relying on police designations of false or not false” which that study does not. If she read it more carefully she would have seen that it analyses how accurate the police designations by evaluating the basis on which the decisions were made.

Oh dear. But they did rely entirely on police data. How did the authors of the study analyse how accurate the police designations were? By evaluating what the police said was the basis of their decision…which is police data. Secondly, did the authors of the study analyse the reports designated by the police as true? No they did not. They relied entirely on those designations. All they did, was look at the ones designated false by the police, analyse why the police decided that, read the reports the police wrote and then applied their own additional (equally subjective) criteria which naturally further reduced the number designated as false. That’s what happens when you add criteria…you create new wickets the data has to pass through. But, at core, all they did was analyse and refine already existing police data. They did no follow up investigation, they gathered no new data.